Just remember, the Russians didn’t get their hands on the Republican National Convention emails; they got their hands on the Democrats. And the Democrats are actually trying to blame their stunning incompetence on Donald TRUMP???

The DNC has been handled in a stunningly and embarrassingly incompetent manner for the last year and a half. And they have been revealed to be so beyond corrupt it is beyond unreal. And that stunningly embarrassing incompetence and that staggering corruption just got EXPOSED.

It was a joke to watch DNC Chairwoman Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz get BOOED by her OWN FLORIDA DELEGATION.

And that kind of disgusting failure to do a damn thing right ought to be rewarded: so Hillary is actually giving Debbie a JOB in her crooked and corrupt campaign. Because staggering incompetent and corrupt birds flock together.

You want to talk about two hideously overrated individuals; the ONLY thing EITHER of them is good at is incompetence and corruption.

Just wanting to make sure you understand: the same Wikileaks that is leacking the DNC emails HAS HILLARY CLINTON’S EMAILS.

The question is what came first, the corrupt Hillary chicken or the corrupt Hillary egg??? Hey, dumbasses, the SAME Wikileaks that hacked Hillary’s secret server is the SAME Wikileaks that hacked Hillary’s DNC. And the common denominator to both hacks is named “Hillary”:

We’re just hours away from the gaveling in of the 2016 Democrat Convention in Philadelphia and the Democrat Party is in chaos after WikiLeaks exposed DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for anti-Bernie Sanders bias during the primary. Wasserman-Schultz announced yesterday she will resign from her post as the head of the DNC when the convention ends Thursday and will promptly join the Clinton campaign.

But the damage WikiLeaks has done to Democrats so far isn’t over. According to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the website will publish more hacked emails and this time, they’ll be about Hillary Clinton and her ongoing private email server scandal.

Julian Assange has made an incredible statement in an interview with ITV. Assange says that Wikileaks, the infamous whistle-blowing website, will soon be publishing documents that contain “enough evidence” for the Department of Justice to indict Hillary Clinton, the expected Democratic nominee.

Team Clinton and the DNC have been in damage control for more than 24 hours now and are blaming the WikiLeaks hack on the Russians, saying it was an attack from President Vladimer Putin on Hillary Clinton in an effort to sabotage her campaign.

[Katie Pavlich left it this way, tweeting:]

So, the Russians hacked the DNC emails and team Hillary wants us to believe they didn’t do the same with her private server? LOL #DNCinPHL

The Hillary line is that Russia did this to help Donald Trump. Because Hillary is the next term of Obama, and everybody knows that Obama has just mopped the floor with Russia. Oh, wait, it’s the other way around and Putin has so mopped planet earth with Barack Obama’s face it’s beyond pathetic kind of the way that Pluto is beyond Earth in the solar system. The simple fact that all intelligent life understands is that the Russians would have gleefully done this to any idiot fool enough to install an unauthorized secret server and not bother to install security on it and then put all kinds of THE most classified material imaginable on it and then use that same system the Russians obviously hacked to email the bigwigs of that idiot’s national convention.

I have to go somewhere, but I just can’t resist shouting this from my rooftop:

For over two years now, emails didn’t matter one tiny bit to the vile people otherwise known as Democrats. They just weren’t morally capable of even the tiniest and most trivial level of honesty, integrity, decency, virtue, character or morality necessary to care about the fact that their candidate for president is as dishonest, corrupt and fascist as they come.

It just got openly revealed to the world that every single thing Hillary Clinton said about her emails and the secret, unauthorized server that she installed to fascistically control access to those emails and keep the public from having any transparency in their leaders, was an outright lie. The woman is a pathological liar, right down to the tiniest details.

But Democrats no more care about Hillary Clinton’s emails than they do about the fact that they will soon be screaming in the eternal fire of hell for a trillion to the trillionth power years for every single nanosecond they murderously stole from every single one of the sixty million babies that every single Democrat has participated in through their vote for the party of abortion. Just as the God of the Bible has declared that homosexual perversion is an abomination and a detestable act that will guarantee the wrath of God against any nation that approves of it.

Democrats couldn’t care less that Hillary Clinton treated the national security of the United States like disgustingly-soiled toilet paper so she could hide her corrupt Clinton Foundation shenanigans.

But all of a sudden we find that some Democrats actually care enough about emails proving the Democrat Party is as corrupt and as fascist and as created for insiders as they come.

Everyone who votes for the Democrat Party is already voting to scream in hell, and this is just another proof of that:

PHILADELPHIA – Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was sidelined from her party convention just hours before the Monday start of the Philadelphia gathering, after leaked emails indicating an anti-Bernie Sanders bias in her operation inflamed the left flank of the party.

The controversial party boss will no longer preside over the convention, and reportedly does not have a speaking role.

In one, she practically laughed off Sanders after he vowed to replace her as DNC chairwoman if elected.

“This is a silly story. He isn’t going to be president,” she wrote in the May 21 email.

Following the release of this and numerous other emails in a WikiLeaks document dump, Fox News confirmed Sunday that Wasserman Schultz will not preside over the Democratic convention. The decision was reached amid pressure from the White House and Hillary Clinton campaign.

The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.
See Latest Coverage →

Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, the former chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, will instead preside over the Democratic proceedings as convention chairwoman.

The rapid-fire set of developments ahead of the Philadelphia convention kick-off indicate a party in crisis management mode as officials try to prevent anger over the email leak controversy and other issues from disrupting proceedings. The emails only bolstered claims from Sanders – and Republican nominee Donald Trump – that the system was rigged against the Vermont senator.

Sanders himself blasted the DNC and Wasserman Schultz in interviews Sunday, demanding her resignation as party chairwoman to boot.

“I think [Wasserman Schultz] should resign. Period. And I think we need a new chair who is going the lead us in a very different direction,” Sanders told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday.

Sanders said “these emails reiterate that reason why she should not be chair.”

Sanders is himself set to speak on the opening night of the Democratic convention, securing an A-list position after a hard-fought, ideological primary battle with Clinton.

But he hasn’t forgiven Wasserman Schultz for an alleged pro-Clinton stance during the campaign. He repeated those claims in the wake of WikiLeaks’ release of roughly 20,000 Democratic National Committee emails.

The leaks, which include emails from January 2015 to May 2016, purportedly came from the accounts of seven DNC officials. In a May 5 email, a DNC employee asked a colleague to collect information on his religious beliefs – claiming it might sway voters in West Virginia and Kentucky. In that particular email, Sanders’ name was not mentioned, but he was the only other candidate in the race at that time against Clinton.

DNC chief financial officer Brad Marshall wrote, “This would make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”

Others from Wasserman Schultz herself contained very strong language, raising questions about her status as an ostensibly neutral party official.

Responding to Sanders’ complaints the party hasn’t been fair to him, she wrote to a staffer in an April email: “Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do.”

Responding to the same staffer a month later regarding Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver blaming the Nevada state party for a raucous convention, she wrote, “Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he barely acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred.”

Sanders will be joined Monday night on stage at the Wells Fargo Center by first lady Michelle Obama and several other speakers, according to the Democratic National Committee.

CNN reported that Wasserman Schultz, however, would not have a speaking role in Philadelphia. Wasserman Schultz is not on the list of speakers released by the DNC.

A Democratic source told the network that she had been “quarantined.”

By contrast, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus delivered an address on the closing night of the GOP convention in Cleveland.

The Democratic National Committee and Wasserman Schultz already were facing internal unrest over party rules, but the email leak aggravated pro-Sanders Democrats even more.

Sanders, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, had argued all along that Washington Democrats favored Clinton. Among other decisions, he pointed to Wasserman Schultz’s decision to limit the number of primary debates, which he argued was meant to protect Clinton.

Sanders — who railed against what he called a “rigged” system throughout his campaign — has since endorsed Wasserman Schultz’s primary rival in her re-election bid, in another sign of the acrimony between them.

Clinton chief strategist Joel Benenson, on “Fox News Sunday,” defended the fairness of the primary elections and said the DNC would conduct a full review of the emails. He said people should not jump to conclusions.

“The DNC’s impact in these things is minimal compared to the results. What candidates and campaigns spend and do on the ground, talking to voters day in and day out, that’s what determines who wins,” he said.

That Sanders gets a prime-time speaking spot is also significant, considering the rival campaigns for weeks negotiated his primary exit strategy, with Sanders insisting that at least some of his progressive agenda — including free college education, better international trade deals and more social and economic equality — be included in the party platform.

Hillary Clinton is a national disgrace. The entire PROCESS that led to this unelectable paranoid fascist control-freak winning the Democratic nomination was a fraud controlled by party insiders.

But what a damn surprise that finally, after YEARS, emails DO matter, after all.

Meanwhile, last week I wrote an article about the sheer dishonesty of the mainstream media coverage of the Republican National Convention. They demonized the open-carry laws of Cleveland and predicted mayhem that never happened; they predicted a giant wave of Republican protest that never happened; they tried to milk every single protest event outside as a narrative to tarnish the convention going on inside to the extent that there would be eighty media surrounding 20 protestors. They claimed that every time a negative remark was said against Hillary Clinton, that it was reminiscent of a “climate of hate” that forced the “journalists” to remember the rise of the Nazis.

And which party just got busted hating on Jews??? You got it, the REAL Party of Lucifer, the Democrat Party.

And as there are tens of thousands of protesters rightly protesting the fascism endemic to the Democratic National Convention and the entire Democratic Party, as you see all the hateful remarks that will spew out of every speakers’ mouth toward Donald Trump, just know that the media is as dishonest as the sun is hot.

Just another something to chew on: the Clinton campaign is blaming this email leak on Russia. You mark my words, if you are fool enough to vote for Hillary Clinton, Russia will also have in its database all the thirty-two thousand emails Hillary purged from her secret server beyond the FBI’s ability to recover that will prove her criminal corruption through her corrupt Clinton Foundation. Russia will blackmail Hillary Clinton into being Vladimir Putin’s slave. And the United States will be sold down the river by a woman who long ago proved that she was all-too-willing to sell America down the river if the price was right or if it was convenient for her.

Nobody denies that Bill Clinton is able to give a great speech. If anything, Clinton’s speeches make Obama look mediocre by comparison. Particularly when Clinton talks about his record and you’re a sentient life form who has any consciousness of reality as to Obama’s economy after four years of his failed policies.

But ultimately, Bill Clinton’s speech amounted to this: “Trust me. Obama is the man to lead us to shared prosperity.”

I could point out that “shared prosperity” didn’t work in the U.S.S.R.; it didn’t work in Maoist China; it didn’t work in Cuba; it didn’t work in North Korea. It didn’t work pretty much anywhere it has ever been tried. It is bankrupting Europe as we speak. And it won’t work here. But I’m more fixated on Bill Clinton’s “Trust me” thing.

How many intelligent people don’t understand that Bill Clinton gave his speech as a career Democrat who was loyally trying to rally Democrats? Probably zero. But unfortunately, there simply aren’t a lot of intelligent people any more, thanks to what liberals have done to our government schools over the last forty damn years.

It is a deliberately forgotten fact that Clinton ended his presidency as a success because he benefitted from the policies of a completely Republican-controlled Congress. Bush ended his presidency as a disaster because he was plagued by the policies of a completely Democrat-controlled Congress.

It is a national disgrace that this nation is controlled by a mainstream media propaganda machine that keeps pumping the message that Obama couldn’t succeed because of Republican obstructionism. Because they will NEVER be consistent or honest and tell you that our economy melted down in 2008 thanks to the policies of Democrats who controlled both the House AND the Senate, whereas Obama benefitted from complete control of both branches of Congress for his first two years in office and now still has Democrats controlling the Senate. George Bush would have LOVED to have enjoyed as little “obstructionism” as he was burdened by his last two years in office under the rule of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Bill Clinton omitted the fact that he left George Bush in a hole that wasn’t a lot less deep than the hole Bush left Obama in.

So should we trust Bill Clinton when he rallies to his fellow Democrat and says, “Trust me, Obama is the only man who can lead you to a better future?”

How about not?

Let’s see: Juanita Broaddrick credibly accused Bill Clinton of raping her. There’s no question Bill Clinton had a sexual affair with Gennifer Flowers – and lied about it. Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment case against him. Kathleen Willey was a loyal Democrat and supporter of Bill Clinton until he grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitalia. And then we all know about how he lied about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, even calling her a “stalker,” until it was revealed that she had a dress with his semen on it.

Yeah, I’d trust Bill Clinton. Every bit as much as Monica Lewinsky’s father would trust Bill Clinton with Monica’s younger sister.

Lawyers constitute the fourth most distrusted profession in America. And Bill Clinton was too dishonest to remain part of it. That should only add to the weight that the slickest politician of all time – he was nicknamed “Slick Willie” as governor of Arkansas for damn good reason – is the king of the second most distrusted profession in America as a politician.

And so, yeah, if I were in the market for a used car, and Bill Clinton came out as the salesman, I would go find myself another used car salesman.

Barack Obama is a wildly failed president. And he is a failure for the very reason that Bill Clinton was ultimately a successful president: because while Bill Clinton compromised and negotiated and bargained with Republicans, Barack Obama surrounded himself with radical leftist ideologues and has steered America left like no president ever has before him.

Obama is going to make a bunch of promises to turn America around and cut the deficit and create jobs, etc. etc., blah, blah, blah. They’re the same promises he failed to keep four years ago and he’s going to demand more of the same failed policies that failed to fulfill those promises that he demanded the last four failed years.

But then she went to CNN. She was on CNN, I think it was Sunday morning on State of the Union with Candy Crowley. Candy Crowley asked her about the Wisconsin recall. “So there’s a recall movement, sitting governor, but he’s now leading in the polls up there, and you’ve said you don’t think there’s national implications to this, and yet you’re gonna spend some of your time up there fundraising for the Democrat who’s challenging Walker. If the Republican governor should retain his seat up there, what will it say about the power of unions who’ve been fighting him, and what will it say about putting Wisconsin in play this fall, maybe going for Romney?”

SCHULTZ: Well, I am going there Tuesday to campaign with Mayor Barrett. I think that he has a real opportunity to win. Ultimately I think Tom Barrett will pull this out, but regardless it’s given the Obama for America operation an opportunity to do the dry run that we need of our massive significant dynamic grassroots presidential campaign which can’t really be matched by the Romney campaign or the Republicans because they’ve ignored on-the-ground operations.

Obama worshipers point to polls that ostensibly show that Obama has a significant lead over Romney in Wisconsin as proof.

Well, a couple of things: 1) polls can change and change quickly. And 2) the same polls that Democrats are pointing to to argue that Obama has a big lead over Romney in Wisconsin WERE THE SAME POLLS THEY WERE POINTING TO WHEN CLAIMING THAT THEIR CANDIDATE WAS GOING TO WIN. Maybe there’s something wrong with those polls given the tiny little fact that they were just completely discredited with the massive Walker win??? Maybe???

The “grassroots” came out in the largest numbers imaginable in Wisconsin: and they told Democrats to shut the hell up and go away. THATwas the real “dry run” that we just witnessed.

In any event, it’s impossible to have a meaningful debate with Democrats because to be a Democrat is to be a liar who keeps constantly moving the goalposts.

President Barack Obama has a bleak message for House and Senate Democrats this year when it comes to campaign cash: You’re on your own.

Democratic congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, have privately sought as much as $30 million combined from Obama for America and the Democratic National Committee — a replay of the financial help they received from Obama in 2008 and 2010.

But that’s not going to happen, top Obama aides Jim Messina and David Plouffe told Reid and Pelosi in back-to-back meetings on Capitol Hill on Thursday, according to sources familiar with the high-level talks. It was a stark admission from a presidential campaign once expected to rake in as much as $1 billion of just how closely it is watching its own bottom line.

Messina and Plouffe told the two Hill leaders that there would be no cash transfers to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from OFA or the DNC, at least not before Election Day, the sources said.

Plouffe is a senior political adviser to the president and served as campaign manager for Obama in 2008, while Messina is Obama’s campaign manager this cycle.

Hill Democrats won’t be seeing much of Obama at their own fundraisers this year, either. Obama has offered to do one money event each for the DCCC and DSCC. OFA officials suggested Vice President Joe Biden do two fundraisers for each campaign committee. Obama will instead send out an email and fundraising letter solicitations for both committees.

Nor, for that matter, have Obama or Biden committed to do events for individual Democratic lawmakers. That’s true even though 23 Democrat-held Senate seats are up for grabs in a competitive battle for control of that chamber. And no fundraisers have been scheduled yet for House and Senate Democrats with Cabinet officials, usually a staple of an election-year calendar for incumbent presidents looking to boost their party’s prospects.

The tightfistedness by the Obama campaign toward Hill Democrats reflects the harsh realities of the 2012 White House fight. Obama, who broke all fundraising records in his historic 2008 run, isn’t going to be the overwhelming financial juggernaut that he was four years ago. Obama still has a big edge in money raised and cash on hand — OFA and the DNC reported nearly $92 million in cash at the end of January after hauling in a combined $250 million last year, according to campaign records — over any Republican challenger.

But that still leaves Obama far short of the $1 billion that many pundits had predicted he would raise this cycle. Messina has railed against such claims for months, as it became a problem for Obama because some donors didn’t think he needed their support. Obama could still raise $700 million to $800 million, Democrats predict, a total that could be eclipsed by the GOP nominee, the Republican National Committee and shadowy pro-GOP super PACs.

The financial caution for the Obama team also reflects the growing power of super PACs, especially for Republicans. The groups — technically unaffiliated with any candidate yet already a huge factor in the GOP presidential contest — are prepared to dump tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions, into the White House race. So far, Democrats, including Obama’s own super PAC allies, have been unable to match that flood of pro-Republican cash.

For instance, Crossroads, the Karl Rove-linked super PAC and nonprofit, will spend as much as $300 million bolstering the GOP presidential nominee and Republican congressional candidates and incumbents, POLITICO and other news organizations have reported.

In comparison, Priorities USA Action, a pro-Obama super PAC founded by former presidential aides, raised just $59,000 in January after taking in $3 million last year. To counter the super PAC gap, Obama has been forced to embrace such outside groups, dispatching Plouffe and other campaign officials — and potentially Cabinet secretaries — to help bolster its efforts. Priorities USA Action is also coordinating money efforts with super PACs raising money for Hill Democrats.

Those huge sums of GOP money, much of it in the form of secret gifts from wealthy donors, have tilted the presidential campaign in an unprecedented way. In the past, an incumbent president like Obama with a broad base of small-donor support would have a significant financial edge against any challenger, particularly one who went through a long and costly primary season like this year’s eventual GOP nominee will have endured.

Crossroads, though, has already announced it will spend $20 million to pummel Obama and the Democrats this summer, a time when the prospective nominee would normally be focused on refilling his own campaign coffers. And super PACs more closely tied to Romney or one of the GOP presidential hopefuls could quickly shift targets with one mega-check from a big donor.

All of which leads to Obama’s decision to worry first about his campaign war chest, with the fate of Hill Democrats further down his “to do” list.

“Our top priority and focus is to secure the electoral votes necessary to reelect the president,” Messina said in a statement to POLITICO. “There’s no doubt that Democratic campaigns face a challenging new political landscape with special interests giving unlimited amounts to super PACs. We’re committed to doing everything we can to elect a Democratic House and Senate, and we’re having a conversation about the best way to achieve that goal.”

Messina added: “The organization and turnout operation we’re building on the ground in states across the country is unparalleled, and it will help to elect Democratic candidates up and down the ballot.”

OFA officials note that White House officials, Cabinet secretaries and top Obama surrogates — including Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chairwoman — have done 15 fundraisers for House and Senate Democrats so far this cycle.

They also point out that Obama’s effort to build a mammoth get-out-the-vote operation in key battleground states like Florida will benefit all Democrats on the ticket, not just the president. OFA and the DNC are expected to spend $50 million-plus in the Sunshine State this year, although an OFA spokesman would not comment on how much the campaign has budgeted for that critical state.

And Obama’s improved approval ratings, combined with a stronger economy and suddenly hopeful Senate Democratic map, are buoying party strategists on the Hill. They know, like the White House does, that Reid has no chance of retaining his majority, nor Pelosi a chance of becoming speaker again, if Obama doesn’t win reelection.

Some Democratic insiders caution as well that the Plouffe-Messina line on Thursday may not be the last word on campaign cash.

Officials for both the House and Senate Democratic campaign committees echoed the conciliatory White House message, despite the unhappiness in Democratic ranks over the Obama stance.

“The DCCC’s goal is to win 25 seats, and President Obama’s reelection is critical to our effort. We appreciate everything that OFA is doing to help and look forward to working with them as we each reach our goals this cycle,” said Jennifer Crider, the DCCC’s communications director.

“Keeping Mitch McConnell and the tea party in the minority is motivating Democrats across the country, and that is why Democratic senators and candidates will have the resources to win in November,” said Matt Canter, the DSCC’s spokesman. “We appreciate OFA’s cooperation with our efforts and look forward to even more support from the president’s campaign and the DNC.”

The 2012 presidential election is shaping up to be a multibillion-dollar contest. President Obama’s re-election committee is expected to raise at least $1 billion, and Republicans have high hopes that their nominee will reach the 10-figure level as well.

That’s brand-new territory for presidential candidates. In 2008, Obama raised nearly $746 million. That was double what George W. Bush raised just four years earlier — which itself was double what Bush raised four years before that.

It’s the first time ever that presidential fundraising shot up that fast. And it puts the Obama re-election operation within reach of raising $1 billion: a volume of cash that takes the campaign out of politics-as-usual.

President Obama’s reelection campaign will bring in a “moderate” amount of money when it reports its fundraising total to the Federal Election Commission in July, a senior campaign adviser said.

The adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that campaign officials have decided to devote the bulk of their early efforts to fortifying the Democratic National Committee rather than the president’s own reelection campaign, anticipating that DNC will need to spend the money earlier. This decision, they said, accounts for the lower total.

Obama advisers anticipate that the president’s campaign will face questions about whether it is on track to meet internal fundraising targets, which have not been disclosed. Inevitably, Obama’s take will be compared with Republican Mitt Romney’s because Romney is the closest thing the GOP field has to a front-runner. On Monday alone, Romney’s Nevada call-a-thon took in more than $10 million.

An American Thinker article does an excellent job of both introducing the increasing desperation of the Obama campaign to raise funds and simultaneously points out the sheer hypocrisy of said Obama campaign.

It just strikes me as beyond amazing that the left continues to depict Obama as some transcendent political messiah when he is in fact the worst money-grubbing whore to ever stink up the White House.

It’s probably about time to finally understand that Obama has his roots as a leftwing community agitator. And that while you can talk the man out of community agitation, you can never take the community agitator out of the man.

The Democratic National Committee’s Organizing for America arm — the remnant of the 2008 Obama campaign— is playing an active role in organizing protests against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s attempt to strip most public employees of collective bargaining rights.

OfA, as the campaign group is known […has been] riding to the aide of the public sector unions… OfA’s engagement with the fight — and Obama’s own clear stance against Walker — mean that he’s remaining loyal to key Democratic Party allies…

OfA Wisconsin’s field efforts include filling buses and building turnout for the rallies this week in Madison, organizing 15 rapid response phone banks urging supporters to call their state legislators, and working on planning and producing rallies, a Democratic Party official in Washington said.

And with all of that evidence that liberals are burning up the powder keg in the Middle East and are trying to do the same thing in America, let me introduce the article that prompted me to write what I wrote above:

While part of the current unrest in Wisconsin is driven by local issues, new information has been uncovered indicating an orchestrated attempt to stir up ‘worker protests’ not only in Wisconsin but in at least a dozen states. The coordinated effort is part of a ‘revolution’ spearheaded in part by a group called ‘Heartland Revolution,’ a Kentucky-based political action organization. The group was first envisioned by a Kentucky Democrat, John Waltz, who announced his candidacy in 2009 to oppose 2-term Republican Geoff Davis for the 4th Congressional District. Waltz was defeated in the November 2010 midterm elections but embarked on an effort to create ‘revolution’ throughout America, stemming from his anger toward what he terms ‘the hijacking of political discourse by right-wing propagandists.’ His group is invovled in the continuing Wisconsin protests of teachers unions upset over Governor Scott Walker’s plan to have them pay for part of their healthcare and pension benefits, to which they currently contribute very little of the total costs.

Waltz frames his revolution in terms of a ‘political war,’ which he claims is being waged against the middle class by Republicans and corporate interests. His aim is to ‘shut down right-wing political cash machines’ using whatever means possible.

For example, in Wisconsin members of his organization were instructed to boycott a Subway Sandwhich Shop in downtown Madison during the protests. The reason? The owner of the deli is a large contributor to Governor Scott Walker.

The following Twitter alert from the Walsh organization was sent to Heartland protesters in Madison this morning:

02.19.11ALERT: If you are @ the protests in WI boycott the Subway in the square. The owners are the 2nd largest contributors to Gov. Walker

Waltz makes no attempt to hide the fact that he is a ‘progressive.’ The term is indicative of a mindset that wishes not only to hide the true intent of those who proudly own the description but promote an agenda that is based on a collectivist view of government and society where decisions concerning the personal lives of citizens can best be made by those in a centralized government complex. The goal is to increase the scope of government so that workers, unions, and others can benefit from a confiscatory tax structure aimed at draining ‘the rich’ to pad the pockets of others.

But perhaps the most troubling aspect of ‘Heartland Revolution’ is its coordinated efforts to create unrest across America, beginning in Wisconsin, but extending to Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Florida, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, New York, Maine, New Hampshire, and New Jersey.

The map displayed here on the group’s blog page will reveal their upcoming plans and targeted areas, along with their Twitter messages to members.

Curiously, the group refers to its protesters as ‘boots on the ground,’ and war terminology abounds. A cursory scan of Heartland Revolution’s website will reveal that members view their efforts as a war, a revolution, with boots on the ground that are determined to intimidate conservatives, overthrow politicans who represent the voices of taxpayers, and target the businesses of those who support them.

Far from being for the ‘working poor,’ as the group claims, Waltz and his minions are dedicated to preverving and expanding union power and protecting the high salaries and benefit structures enjoyed by many who work for various government entities. For example, in Wisconsin the average city school teacher earns over $100,000 per year including pay and benefits, and pays next to nothing toward their retirement or healthcare. The benefits are paid overwhelmingly by taxpayers. Waltz and his group, however, believe that asking these teachers to contribute more to their plans like most Americans do is tantamount to ‘waging war against workers.’

It will be interesting to see in the coming weeks if the average American agrees with him.

If America doesn’t want to burn, it had better vote out all these Democrats and make sure they don’t have enough fire to light anything.

Hillary Clinton gave a pretty good speech. She presented her case for her candidacy, citing all the reasons why she ran and all the aspirations she had for America. And she said that those same reasons were why she now supported Barack Obama. She did outwardly all the things the Obama people wanted her to do.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds responded, “Senator Clinton ran her presidential campaign making clear that Barack Obama is not prepared to lead as commander in chief. Nowhere tonight did she alter that assessment. Nowhere tonight did she say that Barack Obama is ready to lead. Millions of Hillary Clinton supporters and millions of Americans remain concerned about whether Barack Obama is ready to be president.”

I took notes on an interesting discussion on Fox News. There analysis was insightful about what Hillary didn’t do.

The interesting thing about this speech is that she could have given it about ANY Democratic nominee. It could have been given of John Edwards or Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. She didn’t say a word about him as a person. She didn’t talk about what she’d learned about his character over the last 18 months. She didn’t trace his biography and tell us what about his character or experiences would make him fit to be President. She never said she respected him. She never said she had confidence in him. She never said he was ready to be president. She never said she’d come to have confidence in him as Commander-in-chief. She never claimed he was experienced or ready to lead. And in the past she has said that he WASN’T ready to be president, ready to lead, ready to be Commander-in-chief.

In the end, Hillary Clinton supported Barack Obama for President because he is the Democratic nominee for President. She would have supported Daffy Duck if Daffy Duck were the Democratic nominee.

Interestingly, she said Michelle Obama would make a great first lady. She never said the same about Barack Obama making a great President.

It was a minimalist endorsement, and she didn’t go one iota beyond what she needed to.

Heck, the last quarter plus of her speech presented her historic role as the first major female candidate for President. “This is the culmination of the women’s movement of 1848.” That sort of thing. That was the rhetorical high point of the speech.

The speech didn’t in any way culminate with a presentation of Barack Obama’s vision for America. In the end, the speech was more about Hillary (and Hillary supporting the Democratic Party) than it was about Barack Obama as the candidate for President.

What does Hillary Want? That’s the real question. Whether she will say something that overtly undermines Barack Obama in his speech isn’t much of an issue: of course she won’t. She can’t be tied with ANYTHING that would directly undermine Obama’s chances or it would irreparably damage her own career.

How hard has Hillary really worked to overcome Obama’s difficulty reaching her 18 million voters?

What will Hillary say tonight in her speech? I think – in ostensibly campaigning for Obama – she will try to remind voters of what they could have had.

Think of Hillary tonight as the metaphorical spurned jealous ex-wife dieting like mad to make her ex-husband eat his heart out.

Hillary wants to outshine Barack Obama, and she most definitely wants to outshine Joe Biden.

That said, I don’t think the most exciting show will be watching Hillary Clinton when she gives her speech. I think we should be watching her supporters and the many PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass).

Many have raised the issue that it would be better for Hillary if Obama loses. That would allow her to run again in 2012. And that’s clearly true. The only way she could realistically run against Obama if he were President would be if his presidency was going down the toilet. And then the odds would strongly favor Republicans. Hillary is 61 years old, and since she isn’t getting any younger, she only has so many runs left in her (any pun intended).

Maureen Dowd wrote a viciously mischievous piece titled, “Two Against One.” The two, by the way, are Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

I don’t think there’s much of a question as to whether Hillary wants Obama to lose. I don’t think there’s any doubt that she fantasizes about Democrats wailing for the next four years, “Oh, if only we’d remained true to Hillary and not fallen for that snake Obama.”

This isn’t really a dig on Hillary at all: Politicians will surely have a huge representation in the lowest floors of the basement of hell. And if every self-centered, self-aggrandizing, self-absorbed politician in Washington were to be abducted by aliens, the power centers of the D.C. would be very silent indeed.

Hillary wants what’s best for Hillary, and what’s best for Hillary would be to run against McCain in 2012. She just can’t get caught trying to make it happen.

I thought a rightpundits piece came up with an interesting take on the Machiavellian, politically-hatchet-sharp Clintons convincing politically-juvenile Barack Obama to buy their magic beans, with Obama’s professionals coming in afterward to shove Bill and Hillary away from Obama’s ear lest the wolves in sheeps’ clothing pull even more wool over his eyes:

The theme for the DNC Convention tonight is “Renewing America’s Promise.” Hillary’s DNC Convention speech is expected to be one of healing and hope and encouraging her supporters to give their support to Obama. Her role, as per reports, is to be one of healing and unity. She will say the requisite words, I’m sure. Although, I think its odd that she is speaking, for one. For another thing, that the Obama people seem to view it as her responsibility to give Obama votes rather than him getting them. Its definitely an odd election year.

The Clintons also managed to get Obama to agree to a floor vote between herself and Obama. I can just hear the conversation between the two. ‘Why don’t we have a vote and clear the air, Barack. It’ll be healing for the people and there won’t be any of those silly little dangling chads to worry about later,’ she’d say. Barack would put his finger thoughtfully to his lips as he slowly lowers his head so that she could see more than the bottom of his chin. ‘Do you think that would make your people happy and they’d vote for me then?’ he’d ask. ‘Oh yes, Barack, its the thing to do. Then it’ll be clear I lost and the party will be unified again.’ Barack agreed and the Clintons laughed all the way to their separate living areas. They’d be laughing because they know that when Hillary wins the floor vote, she’ll have to reluctantly and oh-so regretfully for poor Barack have to bend to the will of the people and accept their nomination.

But again, the micromanagers stepped in. Even though they are following through with the floor vote, the votes won’t be counted until after Barack is nominated and given his acceptance speech. That’s why appeasement is such a problem. Even though he agreed and everyone was all excited about how they were going to pull the rug right out from under his feet, his people had to come in and straighten the mess out and now everyone is mad.

They say the floor will be completely controlled so that the Hillary supporters will not be able to get their signs up in support of her or have their voices heard. They’ll go away mad, but the damage will be done. As they say, better to ask for forgiveness than to try to get permission.

After all that’s over, they’ll try to win back Hillary’s people. They’ll say they are so sorry about how that worked out and blame every body for misunderstanding their instructions. Yeah, it won’t be their fault. It will just be a misunderstanding.

Under all the smiles, there are a whole bunch of bruised egos and bad feelings.

And a lot of those people with the bruised egos and the bad feelings will be the ones wearing “Hillary 08” campaign buttons.

But even Hillary doesn’t know what her supporters will do, or how many of them will do it. As long as she doesn’t come across as being directly associated with any meltdowns, I think the bigger the ruckus, the more delighted Hillary will be.

That’s going to be the interesting part about her speech, and about the convention.

If Obama comes out of the convention with a big bounce, figure that Obama did a good job wooing back angry white women Hillary supporters. If he doesn’t, figure that they went away mad.

Thanks for helping Catholics understand how hateful Democrats actually are against religion, Nancy! Kick start the DNC with a statement of foolishness and hate.

Pelosi – after making sure she was represented as speaking as a Catholic – was so unrelentingly stupid, and so full of blatant lies, on a crucial issue to the Catholic Christian worldview that you knew a response was coming.

Edward Cardinal Egan, Archbishop of New York, was one of the Catholic leaders to refute Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s incredibly stupid view of Catholic thought on abortion:

STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

Edward Cardinal Egan

Archbishop of New York

Nancy Pelosi “should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.”

It’s whoop-ass day for Nancy Pelosi. The Catholic League weighed in over her terrible lies as well:

On yesterday’s NBC-TV show, “Meet the Press,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked to comment on when life begins. Here is what she said: “I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition.”

When Tom Brokaw told her that the Catholic Church “feels very strongly” that life begins at conception, Pelosi said, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the Church, this is an issue of controversy.”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded as follows:

“Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: ‘Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.’ It also says, ‘Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.’ Looks like Pelosi didn’t study the subject long enough. But not to worry: We are sending her a copy of Catholicism for Dummies today (the Catechism is like maybe a bit advanced).

“Whether Joe Biden is as ignorant of what his religion teaches remains to be seen. What is not in doubt is the enthusiasm which NARAL showed when he was selected to join the ticket. The radical pro-abortion group was delighted, as were the radical pro-abortion delegates to the Democratic convention: as reported in today’s New York Times, 64 percent of Americans reject abortion-on-demand, yet only 23 percent of the delegates do. It is only fitting, then, that NARAL’s president will speak today at the Convention and Planned Parenthood’s president will speak tomorrow.

“So there we have it: the man running for president on the Democratic ticket supports selective infanticide, his running mate is a pro-abortion Catholic, the delegates are wildly out of step with Americans on abortion and the Speaker of the House hasn’t a clue what her religion teaches on the subject.”